NOTE : This is not about whether he was guilty or not. If y0u want to discuss that, please do it in your own thread, not this one. As far as this thread is concerned, he is guilty as convicted.
As we all know, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Libyan al Megrahi, was very controversially released nearly a year ago, because he had an estimated 3 months to live.
The US, both citizens and government, were duly (and justifiably, in my view) outraged at the time, but the furore died down, only to be resurrected now, together with allegations and questions about BP's involvement.
The question is .... is this about al Megrahi, or is it anti-BP opportunism?
There's a couple of points.
First, the British (as opposed to Scottish) government had extensive negotiations with Libya over a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), and a Treaty was eventually signed. As far as I can tell, the only Libyan prisoner this would have applied to at the time was al Megrahi. About the same time, the government were in negotiations with Libya about oil drilling rights and, amid much very public hoopla, a deal was subsequently agreed .... after al Megrahi's release was organised.
And, naturally, BP was keen for the deal to go ahead, and was talking to government about it. That's standard practice. It may be, and has certainly been alleged, that BP pressured the government over the PTA because al Megrahi's continued imprisonment was a stumbling block to the Libyans.
The notion of releasing al Megrahi under the PTA, and the application denied.
Second, al Megrahi was then released under the procedures for Compassionate release, on the basis of terminal prostate cancer and a rather poor prognosis. It was stated that a life expectancy of three months was "reasonable".
However, the medical evidence made it explicitly clear that this was an estimate, and that it is not correct to see it as a guaranteed maximum.
The decision on compassionate release was made by the Scottish, not British, government, and specifically, by the Scottish Justice secretary.
Is the current resurfacing of US anger over his release simply because he's lived so much longer than anticipated, or because it's an opportunity to continue to bash BP. It;s also worth pointing out that BP wasn't the only oil company to be keen to exploit improved relations with Ghaddafi and Libya ... so was US oil giant ExxonMobil.
Also, while BP might have been keen for the PTA to be signed, the application to free al Megrahi under the PTA was turned down. Very clear statements have been made that the compassionate release was based solely on the procedure having been followed and the medical evidence provided, and that absolutely no consideration of oil or representation from BP were received.
So it seems to me that while the US, both citizens and government, were quite right to be erm ... peeved .... about his release, as indeed were many people including me, I'll failing to see that it has much if anything to do with BP,and yet that seems to be driving the furore, judging both by statements from senators and placards from protesters.
So what is this ... righteous anger, or hypocritical witch hunt?
Oh, and by the way, when doctors give a "best opinion" of the time scale of the progress of terminal cancer, they can be significantly out. I have personal experience of that, in both directions.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote




